SOCIETAL PARADOXES
PASSAGES WITH IN A BLACKHOLE
By
Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Virginia Union University
Imagine for a moment what religion was meant for, who initially brought it and what it is doing now on mankind and the groups who commit these crimes on innocent habitants of our planet earth.
When you see in the name of soul searching, in the name of looking for the best possible imagined spiritual space somewhere, which is so tranquil, peaceful and faultless pure angelic place of eternity, how could people should first loose their soul, righteousness, humility etc., which are their main tickets of entrance to the heavens here on earth? How could a soulless being expects to be an angel in heaven, just right after his violent and cruel intent death here on earth? If existence should be continuous( which indeed is) but in different forms, then this type of violent way of changing existence is an irremovable infinite discontinuity which justifies the impossibility of martyrdom tickets to the heavens.
This is a societal paradox where in old times mathematicians used to create fancy looking arguments, they enjoyed it for a while and after some time they discover that the logic was flawed. Here is one of the famous paradoxes which I always want to tell to my students when I teach about set theory, that not all arbitrary collections will form a set. The paradox is called Russell's paradox, due to the English philosopher and mathematician B. Russell.
Russell' paradox : Consider a collection which is defined as follows:
X={x:x∉x}
In words, X is defined as a collection which contains sets which are not contained in themselves.
This definition or description of the collection X then says this: an object x will be in X if it is not in x, and x is not in X if it is in x . In short, X is contained in X if X is not contained in X and conversely X is not contained in X if it is contained in X. This is what we call a paradox but seeming logically correct in its definition. Many curious people created several real life counter examples which show indeed the construction was flawed. A common and popular example that shows indeed the construction of set X is a paradox is this :
In a certain town all people go to an auto mechanic if only they can not fix their cars by themselves. Then the question is, when will the technician or authomechanic fix his own car?
From looking at the hypothesis, the only time the technician will fix his car is when he can not fix his car and this is a paradoxical argument.
It seems to me that some religions and some existing social norms( such as in politics which can be poly tricks in most cases) are full of such paradoxes. The point that I mentioned above, which is martyrdom in some religions is a best fit of a societal version of Russell's paradox: to be first in hell, in order to go to the heavens. For that reason the human society should restructure it self axiomatically to amend paradoxes that are almost everywhere dense in our existing social structures : religion, politics, economics,humanities, etc., and create very almost closer to correct, sensible systems with no paradoxes in it, where thinking, imagination and reasoning are cherished not only in scientific domains but in all structures of society.
Re-structuring the human society by creating a well designed and well ordered axiomatic structure where all religions and other forms of non-scientific structures can be established in a consistent and complete way so that at no condition that mankind will take part in destruction, killing, inhumane activities for the sake of religion, and with all those moral and ethical axioms stated in the existing manuscripts of religions. In the construction of these systems, there should not be an axiom ( or axioms ) or a derivative of it which will incite violence, particularly in religions where there is a notion of life in heaven after earthly life. There should not be an : if..., then..., else..., loop of a negative actions at no time in religions. The path to heaven (if exists) should only be through good work, compassion, love for humanity, etc..
Life in heaven has to be an existence(after death) in a different form, but an extension to that of a person's heavenly like exemplary life style here on earth : humane, compassionate, peaceful with a tranquil earthly life, who feels sufferings of others with the same magnitude (if not more) in whatever form, from what ever source, for whatever reason by others, that who does not inflict pain and damage on others intentionally or otherwise, and these are the traits of passengers to the heavens should have. Even airliners demand several months of bookings to make sure our flights are reserved. We can not get a ticket today and get on board and go where we want to go. These types of definitions will immediately remove all other forms of heavenly entrances, in particular the violent ones, the inhumane ones, the non-compassionate ones, which by no means are not extendable to the eternal heavenly spiritual domain of God.
The situations happening in Iraq and some other countries where a single individual loaded with bombs, put him self among mothers, children, fathers, old and innocent ones and explode himself and kill all around him to go to the heaven, are the most paradoxical thinking that mankind ever created or imagined about the heaven and the means to go there. These kinds of definitions of heavens are simply fictional deep space missions where every body has his own destination which he calls it heaven, and this costs mankind collectively a lot here on earth, several civilizations are destroyed and buried, relationships are spoiled and left a scar of suspicions among peoples and countries, and among members of worshipers of different religions. In general the human race is undermined and humanity comes almost at the bottom of the to do list for these deep space mission travelers.
I call these particular people, passengers of a black hole and their way, "passages with in a black hole" which is not a worm hole. Some thing in a black hole to escape from it, the path it has to use is a worm hole which takes the object to a new outer domain called a white hole, where there is an extreme of lightness contrary to the black hole. Therefore the wrong path in a black hole will not take things out of it but rather it takes them to another location with in the black hole. I use the black hole here to represent a place which is completely devoid of lightness, where reasoning and logic are not known, where human thinking is completely undermined, and above all sense of humanity is completely wiped out
It is very important to acknowledge that there are many cases where religious believes and practices have only formal value. So, in all that cases, a believer or a religious man shows to the public a kind of "formal" or "institutional" behaviour, but at the same time, he has another scale of values that guide always his real or true behaviour. (I confessed that I am a Christian, but at the same time I consult fortune-tellers and witches). Many times, for a lot of people, there is a great gap between what they said and what they did.
DAL: "In a certain town all people go to an auto mechanic if only they can not fix their cars by themselves. Then the question is, when will the technician or authomechanic fix his own car?"
Naive set theory is full of problems. I would simply deny that there is such a town with such an auto mechanic.
Christian theology has generally condemned deliberate martyrdom. Genuine martyrdom is not suicide --- much less, is it murder. Consider the case of Saint Thomas More. He was a successful barrister. He tried his best to use every legal stratagem to avoid the martyrdom which he eventually suffered. He was right to have done so.
As for other religions, I have not a clue.
what is life and death and pardoxical thinking for an iraqi or a palestinain or an afghan orphan who sees every day his country destroyed and burned by occupiers,who sees his own mother ,his own father,his own brothers and sisters,his own neighbors,his own beloved,his own house,his own people raped and killed and destroyed and stolen under a package of lies and propaganda and a false, fabricatated and criminal motivation.
repsectfully
doctor ezdi Ph.D
DBSE: "what is life and death and pardoxical thinking for an iraqi or a palestinain or an afghan orphan who sees every day his country destroyed and burned by occupiers,who sees his own mother ,his own father,his own brothers and sisters,his own neighbors,his own beloved,his own house,his own people raped and killed and destroyed and stolen under a package of lies and propaganda and a false, fabricatated and criminal motivation."
Choose life!!
thanks dear Bill but they are not allowed to choose their own life either,,look at the largest open prison called gaza in occupied palestine,,one million and half palestinians under a criminal siege,they can't choose ,they are obliged to die a slow death,it is a slow genocide of a whole people,,,,How can anyone watching Gaza burn escape the bitter realization that history repeats itself? Many have compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to Apartheid South Africa. But not in their cruelest hour did the Apartheid regime wreak such wanton murder and destruction. Let us stop mincing words. What is happening to Palestinians now whispers of Warsaw and Lodz.
Schools, universities, mosques, police stations, homes, water treatment plants, factories, and anything that supports civil society, including the only mental health clinic in Gaza, have been blown to rubble from planes that rain death from clear skies without any resistance, because Palestinians have no opposing air force. Nor do they have an army or navy. No mechanized armor or heavy weaponry. Thanks to Israel, they haven’t even had continuous electricity or fuel for the past two years. Or food and medicine. Israel’s siege and blockade of Gaza has prevented the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, including the import of the most basic goods necessary for survival.
A recent study by the Red Cross showed that 46 percent of Gazan children suffer from anemia. Malnutrition affects 75 percent of Gaza’s population, half of whom are under the age of 17. There has been widespread deafness among children due to Israel’s intentional and frequent sonic booms from low overflights. An alarming number have stunted growth and serious mental disorders due lack of food. The only way they have been able to survive thus far has been due to the tunnels that smuggle food and goods from Egypt.
Half of Gazan children under 12 have lost their “will to live.” or choose their own life,,,Can anyone fathom the kind of oppression that leads small children en mass to lose their will to live?
respectfully
ezdi
Hi all!
This is an interesting debate because there are a lot of issues been discussed in here:
1.º I think that is not a religious question, but a geopolitical, or biopolitical issue. We are talking about a territory that is occupied by two different countries fighting for a territory that, for me (in a personal opinion is a no man’s land!).
2.º It’s a cultural and mentally issue. Two different cultures, two different ways of seeing and imagine live. For one side we have the Palestinian who, for many reasons has a problem of identity (like all Arab countries), who unfortunately as never reach a consensus between them, like European or Americans, etc…
3.º It’s the problem of Orientalism, that is to say, that we (Occidental) look at the problems of those countries and people in a occidental point of view, with our own eyes (culture, ideas, rationality), that is, for effect, different that those that are living there.
4.º I do not deny the Holocaust and Auchwitch or any other concentration camps, the suffering and the pain, that unfortunately all Jews, latins, gypsies, and many other have suffer. It is impossible, for me, to understand that amount of pain. But the problem is that Israel still lives under that siege, under that stereotype that must be overcome.
5.º (and last) is the question of religious. I think, and maybe I’m wrong, that this is the issue with fewer problems.
There is the idea that the problems between East and West are based on religion. But I strongly believe that the problem is related with the biopolitics, with control and power over territory and geopolitical issues. But perhaps I’m wrong…
David Santos
PhD Student in History of History, Philosophy and Science
DBSE: "Can anyone fathom the kind of oppression that leads small children en mass to lose their will to live?"
The children do what they have been told to do. It is sad that parents turn against their children. But it has always been that way... We know that the Ammonites offered child sacrifices to Moloch, their god. It is the same today in many parts of the world.
Nothing changes under the sun.
DS: "It’s the problem of Orientalism, that is to say, that we (Occidental) look at the problems of those countries and people in a occidental point of view, with our own eyes (culture, ideas, rationality), that is, for effect, different that those that are living there."
Not so. I know many people from the East who do not allow their children to kill themselves... people who love their children and protect them, rather than exposing them to such a false ideology.
Dear Bill,
Your arguments are quite controversial, in first place, cause that's not quite truth. There are a lot of children, and adult who kill themselves for questions of cultural ideology see for example anorectic and bulimic girls... see the case of children who go to a High School and shoot their friends... there are quite a lot of examples of people that kill or die for a stupid reason...
So we must tried to understand both parts and, at the same time, look at our belly button first before point our hand to the neighbor next door.
But perhaps I’m wrong…
David Santos
PhD Student in History of History, Philosophy and Science
DS: "Your arguments are quite controversial..."
I wish we could just dismiss the whole subject so easily. But I do pay attention to the news. There are societies which glorify suicide-murder. That is a fact of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
Dear Bill,
You won't see in my previous comments any dismiss of the violence in Palestinian, or other place (Bosnia, Columbia, Cuba, Basque Country, South Africa, Nepal, USA...). What I'm trying to say is that the violence of that kind happens anywhere around the globe. You don't need to be Muslim to sacrifice children...
On last note, it is easy to criticize what is happening in the other corner of the world without knowing their reality and, at the same time, spending a good time watching the news and eating a Big Mac...
But perhaps I’m wrong…
David Santos
PhD Student in History of History, Philosophy and Science
DS: "You won't see in my previous comments any dismiss of the violence in Palestinian, or other place (Bosnia, Columbia, Cuba, Basque Country, South Africa, Nepal, USA...). What I'm trying to say is that the violence of that kind happens anywhere around the globe. You don't need to be Muslim to sacrifice children..."
I said nothing about Muslims. I am referring to a culture, not to a religion.
I know of no Western culture which approves of suicide-murder. I know of few in the East which do. Japan was at one time, such a culture. I believe they have overcome that social tendency. There are still a few which have not.
DS: "On last note, it is easy to criticize what is happening in the other corner of the world without knowing their reality and, at the same time, spending a good time watching the news and eating a Big Mac..."
I take that as an 'argumentum ad hominem,' and an unsupported criticism of myself. Please explain your reasons for this 'last note.'
Dear Bill,
Please don't take this discussion to a personal level, 'cause that is not my intention. I think that in theory we both agree with the fact that violence exist for real in every aspect of the human condition - it's not a virtual reality. My personal critic is that we can't only provide the reason to that violence to a cultural aspect... There's a lot of violence wondering around in our Occidental way of live, in which we believe that is civilized...
The problem's that Palestinians live in their every day life, is hard, or even impossible to access. That doesn't mean that we can close our eyes to the bad things they do! That means that before of looking at that, we must search for the reasons!
As for may last note, as I said in the beginning of my comment, it's not a personal attack, but only the power of metaphor.
But perhaps I’m wrong…
David Santos
PhD Student in History of History, Philosophy and Science
The problems in Gaza would quickly come to an end if they stopped firing rockets against Israel.
But, one might say they are at war with Israel? Then they should at least aim at legitimate military targets. Nor should they cry when Israel strikes back at them.
But the problem of suicide-murder extends far beyond Palestine. In Iraq, and Afghanistan we see people walking into a crowded marketplace or a mosque to detonate a bomb, killing dozens of people --- without any claim that the people they attacked had done anything to warrant such an attack. The cultures which generate such happenings are sick cultures.
I would hope that these people learn from the example of Japan. It has risen from the ashes of war to become one of the world's leading nations. They have overcome their kamikaze past. So can the people of Gaza. Men are not doomed to relive their past. Thus I say, "Choose life!!"
DS: "As for may last note, as I said in the beginning of my comment, it's not a personal attack, but only the power of metaphor."
For what it is worth, I spend little time watching TV... and I can not remember when I may have had a Big Mac. Your 'metaphor' certainly missed the mark, so far as I am concerned.
Goodness...where to begin?
BO: "I know of no Western culture which approves of suicide-murder."
In my view, one does not have to verbally approve to still be a part of the approval problem. There are many manifestations of 'suicide-murders' - from societal constraints and discriminations to religious psychological dogma. Suicide-murder is not a purely 'cultural' phenomena. Thus, certainly not confined to the Eastern/Asian regions either.
I don't believe 'suicide-murder' are ideals in themselves but occur as a result of mental states, misery and poverty so real and intense that the fear of death pales in comparison to the torture of 'this Life'. Such a depressed mind is wide open for any skewed doctrine promising better life.
For me, the argument is moot - who knows what the experiences are of "...these people..." and their victims? Could we ever really comprehend the degree of their misery and poverty, and therefore their conviction?
Without new knowledge and the freedom to create and experience a better world for ourselves on ANY LEVEL, our ability to survive as a society of free men and women is severely diminished. Thus, 'choice' as an indicator of decisive, free will is certainly a luxury enjoyed by a free society.
Having said that, how could we think that any form of revolution in history had a 'start' and an 'end date' within which any optimistic ideal was 'achieved'. It remains our responsibility as free thinkers to do more than just pay lip-service to the idea of Freedom. Not exclusively in response to 'those things' happening to 'people over there' - but mostly in response to the degrees of symbolical murder-suicide that happens on our own doorstep everyday.
-------------
"An article in the Spring 2009 edition of Middle East Quarterly[35] argues that the United States is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are a special form of domestic violence, requiring special training and special programs to protect the young women and girls most subject to it. The article suggests that the fear of being labeled "culturally insensitive" prevents US government officials and the media from both identifying and accurately reporting these incidents as "honor killings" when they occur. Failing to accurately describe the problem makes it more difficult to develop public policies to address it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
------------------
I, for one, am optimistic at the idea that there *are* more good will thinkers and do-ers in this world than not. The trick is recognising when To Think and when To Do - and not at the expense of others.
I still have a problem with blanketing plain miscreant or evil behaviour - even though its occurrence is plentiful - as an indicator of 'that culture'. Being told by a witchdoctor to consume a sacrificed child's bodyparts so that he can be cured of AIDS is more a result of fundamental mental problems and susceptibility to evil than an indicator of Zulu culture, for example. The same goes for 'Kamikaze' actions in WWII - there were mixed feelings and even resistance by Japanese society and military to such a military strategy - making the decision more an intentional imperial abuse of an ancient religious Shinto philosophy than a cultural one.
Let's take more care in being more specific with these things shall we?
NvR: "I still have a problem with blanketing plain miscreant or evil behaviour - even though its occurrence is plentiful - as an indicator of 'that culture'. Being told by a witchdoctor to consume a sacrificed child's bodyparts so that he can be cured of AIDS is more a result of fundamental mental problems and susceptibility to evil than an indicator of Zulu culture, for example. The same goes for 'Kamikaze' actions in WWII - there were mixed feelings and even resistance by Japanese society and military to such a military strategy - making the decision more an intentional imperial abuse of an ancient religious Shinto philosophy than a cultural one. Let's take more care in being more specific with these things shall we?"
Yes, there is a certain type of mental illness at work. Unfortunately, the cultures in question consider such mental illness perfectly reasonable.
NvR: "Bill, I think it's still an unfair statement to make."
Choose life!!
How, exactly, do you propose one *does* that?
I mean, I'm already *living* aren't I?
Now, if you'd said: "Choose death." or maybe: "Don't choose Life." well then maybe I'd have something more to say...but: "Choose life." ? How does that relate to my assertion of an "unfair statement"?
I do not reduce morality to 'diamonds and squares.' That may seem unfair to some.
Someone must speak out for the people who die merely because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will not justify the perverse 'martyrdom' of those who would commit suicide-murder. It is a cultural sickness which should be condemned.
thank you all for your posts but we must redefine terrorism here,,what is terrorism?
is the palestinian who resists the israeli terror a terrorist?
is the palestinian or the iraqi or the afghan who fights for his dignity,for his liberty,for his honor,for his land,for his family protection,for his people on his own land a terrorist?
is the man in gaza occupied palestine who fights the israeli army who stole his land,commited and still commiting all sort of crimes,terrorism,genocide,ethnic cleansing,slow death,siege,check points,walls,fuel,electricity water cuttings,let humanbeings die by hunger without any basic needs a terrorist????
why we called the french who fought the german during the 2nd world war a freedom fighter and the pallestinian or the iraqi or the afghani who fought israeli or american occupiers a terorist???
Americans do not think of themselves or of "Israel" as terrorist states, but the evidence is complete and overwhelming. Thanks to the power of the "Israel" Lobby, Americans only know the "Israeli" side of the story, which is that evil anti-semite Palestinians will not let blameless "Israelis" live in peace and persist in their unjustified terror attacks on an innocent "Israeli" state.
The facts differ remarkably from "Israel" Lobby propaganda. "Israel" illegally occupies Palestine. "Israel" sends bulldozers into Palestinian villages and knocks down Palestinian houses, occasionally killing an American protester in the process, and uproots Palestinian olive groves. "Israel" cuts Palestinian villages off from water, hospitals, farmlands, employment and schools. "Israel" builds special roads through Palestine on which only "Israelis" can travel. "Israel" establishes checkpoints everywhere to hinder Palestinian movement to hospitals, schools and from one enclave or ghetto to another. Many Palestinians die from the inability to get through checkpoints to medical care. "Israel" builds illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. "Israeli" Zionist "settlers" take it upon themselves to evict Palestinians from their villages and towns in order to convert them into "Israeli" settlements. A huge wall has been built to wall off the stolen Palestinian lands from the remaining isolated ghettoes. "Israeli" soldiers shoot down Palestinian children in the streets. So do "Israeli" Zionist "settlers."
All of this has been documented so many times by so many organizations that it is pathetic that Americans are so ignorant. For example, "Israeli" peace groups such as Gush Shalom or Jeff Halper's "Israeli" Committee Against House Demolitions provide abundant documentation of "Israel's" theft of Palestine and persecution of Palestinians. Every time the UN passes a resolution condemning "Israel" for its crimes, the US vetoes it.
The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees' film, The Iron Wall, reveals the enormity of "Israel's" crimes against Palestine.
President Jimmy Carter, "Israel's" friend, tried to bring peace to the Middle East but was frustrated by "Israel". Carter was demonized by the "Israel" Lobby for calling, truthfully, the situation that "Israel" has created "apartheid."
respectfully
doctor ben salem ezdi Ph.D
According to Israelis and their supporters in the American media, Palestinian suicide bombings are an unfathomable evil, the work of deranged men. Only savages, we are led to believe, could kill women and children by blowing themselves up. If American commentators even attempt to explain the attacks it is to remind us that the Muslim paradise is populated with beautiful virgins, and to suggest that the bombers may be sex maniacs.
In fact, it is not hard to understand the suicide bombers. First, they have a burning desire to kill Israelis, and second, they have no other way to do it. They want to kill Israelis because they believe Israelis have taken their land. Israelis have built hundreds of Jewish settlements on land Palestinians think belongs to them. Israelis have bulldozed their houses, uprooted their olive groves, killed their men, and humiliated their women and children. The United Nations has condemned Israeli actions again and again, but Israel — thanks to the support of the United States — flouts world opinion. Palestinians believe they have suffered every form of dispossession and degradation short of extermination.
Any people with a grievance as deep as that wants nothing so passionately as to kill the oppressor. The desire to kill, to take revenge, becomes stronger than the desire for life itself. Palestinians do not have the tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter-bombers America has given Israel, so they fight with the only weapon they have: their bodies.
The depth of Palestinian bitterness is measured by the number of women who are now counted among the suicide bombers. Women almost never volunteer for front-line combat. For women to attack an enemy at the cost of certain death for themselves is practically without historical precedent.
Israel's apologists would have us believe suicide bombing is sick and incomprehensible. In fact, suicide attacks (and defenses) are the traditional tactics of desperate men facing overwhelming odds, and the Palestinians are clearly part of that tradition. Leonidas and his Spartans knew they would die at Thermopylae, and were determined to take as many Persians with them as they could. Perhaps Xerxes thought they were sick or incomprehensible, but to the Greeks — to the entire West — they are heroes. They gave their lives for their homeland, and we honor their sacrifice. The men who died at the Alamo could have run away, but they stayed and fought to the death so that the republic of Texas could be born. Like Jim Bowie and Will Travis, Palestinians believe their deaths will give birth to a new nation for their people. Blood and soil — those are what men have willingly fought and died for throughout history.
The Japanese kamikaze pilots were the suicide bombers of the Second World War. They were volunteers, ready to sacrifice their lives for emperor and country. They were not afraid to die if they could sink an enemy ship and perhaps turn back the American advance. All soldiers in battle face the possibility of death, and some soldiers accept certain death if they believe there is no other way to defeat a stronger enemy. The families of the kamikaze pilots were proud their sons showed such devotion to Japan, just as the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are proud of their children.
Why, though, must the Palestinians kill civilians? Because they cannot hope to take on the Israeli army. They cannot reach the men in the tanks and fighter-bombers, so they kill their fathers, wives, and children instead. It is an ugly and immoral way to fight, but that is how the Allies fought the Second World War. When Britain and America could not kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield they killed their families from the air. The Germans and Russians did the same. For desperate people, the distinction between a soldier and his family means very little. To the Palestinians, who see Jewish settlers of every age and sex as thieves and occupiers, the distinction is virtually meaningless.
The Palestinians are fighting what all the world but Israel and America consider to be a war of national liberation. They believe with all their heart that they are fighting for their homeland, for their survival as a people. It would be surprising if they did not use every means at their disposal, no matter how sickening or violent, to free their land from what is to them a brutal and alien tyranny. It is blindness to dismiss them as incomprehensible madmen or to sneer at their motives. For people who claim to admire Will Travis and Leonidas, it is dishonesty to scorn the sacrifices of the Palestinians or deny their love for what they believe to be their country.
Israel and its apologists want to turn the world against the Palestinians by telling us they are barbarians, impervious to reason, who must be crushed. In effect, they want us to believe Palestinians are not fully human, for thus do the Israelis justify to themselves and to the world their own behavior. Gilbert Blythe is the pen name of a Washington-area journalist.
ezspectfully
doctor ezdi Ph.D
BDE: "The facts differ remarkably from 'Israel' Lobby propaganda. 'Israel' illegally occupies Palestine. 'Israel' sends bulldozers into Palestinian villages and knocks down Palestinian houses, occasionally killing an American protester in the process, and uproots Palestinian olive groves. 'Israel' cuts Palestinian villages off from water, hospitals, farmlands, employment and schools. 'Israel' builds special roads through Palestine on which only 'Israelis' can travel. 'Israel' establishes checkpoints everywhere to hinder Palestinian movement to hospitals, schools and from one enclave or ghetto to another. Many Palestinians die from the inability to get through checkpoints to medical care. 'Israel' builds illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. 'Israeli' Zionist 'settlers' take it upon themselves to evict Palestinians from their villages and towns in order to convert them into 'Israeli' settlements. A huge wall has been built to wall off the stolen Palestinian lands from the remaining isolated ghettoes. 'Israeli' soldiers shoot down Palestinian children in the streets. So do 'Israeli' Zionist 'settlers.'"
Believe it or not, but I do not support Israel. My godparents were Maronite Christians. Perhaps that means something to you? It should. I have many Christian friends from the Middle East, Maronite, Melkite, and Chaldean. I sympathize with them, not with Israel.
Nevertheless, I can not support evil means to an end. If the people of Gaza wish to fight Israel, they should attack military targets. There is no excuse for indiscriminate attacks against a civilian population.
The same is true of the Shiites who hate Sunnis and the Sunnis who hate Shiites, whether in Iraq or elsewhere.
The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Only cowards attack people who are simply going about their daily life, in a marketplace or going to a mosque. The suicide-murder is a coward. You may praise them as 'martyrs' but their 'martyrdom' is a cowardly perversion.
I really don't think anyone is condoning or praising any such acts here, let alone justifying - merely taking cognisance of the fact that there IS more to what we know, and that what we know is fallible anyway. Perceptions in general, although assumed to be biased, are nonetheless rational - a good approximation to the truth, yet recognising that it is not true. As for "reduction of morality", my distinction of someone with a problematic mental state and someone with a healthy mental state is the degree to which they are able to *change their beliefs*, however reluctantly, when faced with new information, pressures and criticism. This may be a pragmatic approach I submit, but still rational. Thus, resistance to any rational change of mind or view together with a personal justification and commitment to one's own [fallible] opinion, no matter what that does to others, is an indication of skewed commitment/irrational faith and thus actions of a mad-man/woman.
So, what does this mean for 'culture'? Well, nothing really - unless of course you have a *collective council of madmen* - people who share a common irrational ability to take pride in their inabilities and thus adopt their manias as their life's commitment.
Well, then, in such cases, one of Dejenie's opening statements may very well make sense for murder-suicide: "...the only time the technician will fix his car is when he can not fix his car".
NvR: "Well, then, in such cases, one of Dejenie's opening statements may very well make sense for murder-suicide: '...the only time the technician will fix his car is when he can not fix his car.'"
I would simply point out that there is no such town and no such auto mechanic.
this may have already been mentioned, but according to the estimates by the UN and NGOs, in last year's Gaza war, there were approximately 1300 dead palestinians, with probably 85% innocent people, and around 13 israelis, probably 85% of them soldiers. so it seems that a) the ratio of dead palestinians to israelis was 100 to 1, plus the side which most hit civilians was israel.
as regards martyrdom and cowardly perversions, destroying a sovereign country with no evidence whatsoever, taking innocent 19 year olds to war (i refer to american soldiers) and probably getting them killed for the sake of some contracts, or spending billions of dollars of people's money for a stupid war in a faraway land, that seems like a cowardly perversion too.
then if somebody treats all people of the enemy land as a legitimate target seems to be on a par with the logic of 'collateral damage'. maybe civilian targets are 'collateral damage' of terrorist acts.
If the people of Gaza had stopped firing rockets at Israel, there would have been no deaths. Their desire to kill Jews brought these things upon them. It is a shame, is it not?
Bill wrote:"If the people of Gaza had stopped firing rockets at Israel, there would have been no deaths"
dear Bill why you don't want to put things the other way?why the victims become guilty and the guilty occupiers become the civtims??why you don't want to say this "if israel had stopped commiting all sorts of crimes,messacres,slow genocide for more than 60 years,demolish houses,stealing lands and properties,starving palestinians,caging them on an open consentration camp and in the largest open prison on earth,reducing them to the lowest life as animals then people in gaza stopp resisting and fighting for their liberty????????????????
"give me liberty or give me death" remeber this dear Bill
respectfully
doctor ezdi Ph.D
BEN GURION wrote:Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it.
HERE IS AGAIN BEN GURION GIVING US FACTS
Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
MORE FROM ISRAELI LEADER BEN GURION
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
please read these facts,this truth that zionists do everything to hide it from the general public/
1_ when the palestine problem was created by britain in 1917,more than 90% of the population of palestine were ARABS ,and that there were at that time no more than 56,000 jews in palestine.
2_ more than half of the jews living in palestine at that time were recent immigrants,who had come to palestine in the preceding decades in order to escape persecution in europe...and that less than 5% of the population were native palestinian jews.
3_ the arabs of palestine at that time owned 97,5% of the land,while native palestinian jews and recent immigrant jews together owned only 2,5%of the land.
4_ during the thirty years of british occupation and rule,the zionists were able to purshase only 3,5% of the land of palestine,in spite of encouragement of the british goverment...and that much of this land was transferred to zionists bodies by the british goverment directly,and was not sold by arab owners.
5_ therefore,when british passed the palestine problem to the united nations in 1947 ,zionists owned no more than 6% of the country.
HERE IS BEN GURION TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE THEFT OF PALESTINE
Ben-Gurion was dismayed by the large "mass robbery" of Palestinian properties by the citizens of the "Jewish state". He said in a Cabinet meeting:
"The ONLY thing that surprised me, and surprised me bitterly, was the discovery of such moral failings among us [Jews], which I had never suspected. I mean the mass robbery in which all parts of [the Jewish] population participated."
Zionists fanatics ultimately solved their "Palestinian problem" with mass expulsions, murder, and well-planned terror. Palestinians who were born there and whose ancestors had lived there for countless generations were rounded up by the Israeli stormtroopers and driven over the border. Told they could never return to their homes, those expelled had little more than the tattered clothes on their backs. Many who refused to leave their homes were massacred by the Israeli military, and the Zionists publicized the massacres, intentionally causing widespread panic and flight among the Palestinians.
THIS IS HISTORY TELLING YOU ALL THE TRUTH
Committing atrocities against the Palestinians became an integral part of the Israeli strategy. When Jewish terrorists raped and massacred the residents of Arab villages, those in the surrounding villages naturally gathered up their children and fled for their lives. Once the Zionists set up their state and secured their initial borders - minus approximately 630,000 pesky Palestinian men, women, and children - the beneficent government of Israel forbade them ever to return to their homes, businesses, fields and flocks. By the time the Israeli "War for Freedom" ended, only about 170,000 Palestinians were left within Israelí³ borders.
The massacre at Deir Yassin
De Reynier arrived at the village on the second day and saw "the mopping up," as one of the terrorists put it to him. It had been done with machine guns, then grenades, and was finished off with knives. They decapitated some of the victims and maimed 52 children in the sight of their mothers. The terrorists cut open 25 pregnant women's wombs and butchered the babies in front of them.
I went into six to seven houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women's crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder.2
Albert Einstein, along with other concerned Jews, wrote a letter to the New York Times in 1948 decrying Begin as having: "openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist State." He went on to describe Deir Yassin in these words:
On April 9, terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants - 240 men, women, and children, and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of JerusalemÖ´he terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre...
Menachem Begin boasts of the importance of the massacre of Deir Yassin in his book The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun. He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the "victory" of Deir Yassin. "The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on other fronts... In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, 'Deir Yassin'.".
respectfully
doctor ezdi Ph.D
My comment, "If the people of Gaza had stopped firing rockets at Israel, there would have been no deaths," was, of course, a response to Haris Shekeris, and relates to the recent conflict to which he referred.
There is no doubt that David Ben-Gurion was a revolutionary Zionist.
Nevertheless, there are limits to what can be justified in war. Indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations should be unequivocally condemned.
Suicide is another thing that can not be justified in any rational way. It is a sickness. As has been pointed out we have seen high-school situations involving suicide-murder, as a way that sick people can grab fifteen minutes of fame.
dear Bill, suicide can be a sickness in a society that wants to medicalise everything. for example, would you call the suicides of japanese people when they were first into contact with europeans (dunno, 16th or 17th century) the result of mass sickness? and what sickness are you referring to, are you referring to disease or mental illness? can it be treated? i think there's more to be said about social construction of terms than you're crediting.
I have, myself, used the word sickness in this thread to describe what is involved. I clearly recognize that it is a societal problem. I don't know that saying it is a societal problem necessarily excuses the individual of all responsibility...
I think the origins of the Samurai code go far back in Japanese history --- I see little reason to blame Europeans...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
Choose life!! That seems to be one of man's greatest obligations. It is clearly one of the first.
NvR: "Yes, but *whose* Life, remains the question."
Live!! Life is fantastic, a miracle in progress.
dear bill, you don't seem to have answered natasha's question. do you mean your own life? there's clear instances where this is violated, for example when parents would prefer to die in order to save their children.
actually, if hamas gives money to suicide bombers' children or to the families of martyrs, then even suicide bombers may be actually choosing life too.
HS: "dear bill, you don't seem to have answered natasha's question. do you mean your own life? there's clear instances where this is violated, for example when parents would prefer to die in order to save their children."
It is one thing to choose a heroic action, it is another to kill oneself. The parent who enters a burning house to save the child does not attempt to kill himself. If it happens it happens.
HS: "actually, if hamas gives money to suicide bombers' children or to the families of martyrs, then even suicide bombers may be actually choosing life too."
So it is right to kill the innocent in order to make money? Is it right for corporations to poison people in order to make money? Stockholders have families they must feed.
GVR: "let us hope the stake holder survives the machinations of the state as well as the terrorists..."
Stake holder?
Is the poor Shiite who goes to his mosque and is murdered by a Sunni terrorist a stake holder?
Is the poor Sunni who goes to his mosque and is murdered by a Shiite terrorist a stake holder?
How about the Christian who goes to his church and is murdered by a terrorist. Is he a stake holder?
And last, but not least, how about the Jew who goes to his synagogue and is murdered by a terrorist. Is he a stake holder?
Who cares about the so-called stake holders? Let us have compassion for the victims.
The real irony in all these cases is that the true martyr is the victim, not the terrorist.
dear bill, i think G V reddy was using the word 'stakeholder' in the sense that the common person is the one in whose name all these crimes happen. now, by emotionalising the issue and asking rhetorical questions you risk totally ignoring engaging with G V reddy's view.
you're doing the same with the word martyr, since you're ignoring the arab interpretation of the word. i am attempting to use the word as an actor's category, ie just use the term the arabs use to label the people you call suicide bombers.
as regards your rhetorical questions, why do you not mention the victims of state terrorism? for example the poor gazans who get hit by white phosphorus. the poor iraqis who die of cancer because of depleted uranium. aren't all these victims too? yet they are absent from your list of victims.
as regards your answer to me, also the aim of the terrorist is not to kill himself, but to kill as many enemy participants as possible. maybe the fact that they're not wearing a uniform doesn't let him see that they're not actually soldiers. and what if the aim of the suicide bomber is to give their children a future? that seems like a heroic action to me.
as regards killing the innocent to make money, it seems that most killings of innocents are to make money in one way or another (apart from natural calamity-related deaths). as regards to the ethical question, as i support relativism, i'd ask you from which person's viewpoint is it right?
HS: "as regards to the ethical question, as i support relativism, i'd ask you from which person's viewpoint is it right?"
Personally I would defend civilization over any sort of barbarism. Relativism always end up advancing the lowest common denominator, the barbarian.
I have said it before... I do not support Israel. On the other hand, I find it very easy to believe that the attack on the UN facility in Gaza where white phosphorus seems to have been used may have been staged by Hamas. It just seems too convenient to imagine that Israel would stage such an attack. I take them to be smarter than that. But it seems to be just the sort of thing one might expect from Hamas. With that one stroke they 'justified' all their efforts in the minds of relativists.
Which person's viewpoint is right? Well, yours, of course... That is the only answer you will accept. Just wait until a terrorist is attacking you and you will suddenly learn what comes from supporting terrorism.
dear bill, your last post seems a bit weird, to say the least. you say that you do not support Israel, yet you propose a whole theory that goes contrary to the UN findings to absolve Israel of any responsibility. on the previous paragraph, you mention barbarians. do you believe that there are barbarians? can you give examples and justify your view?
as to your charge of supporting terrorism, can you give me examples of my sayings that show my support for acts of terrorism, rather than justification?
and of course that is not the only answer i accept, that my viewpoint is right or something. my viewpoint is nothing than just that, a person's (and probably reflecting a society's) viewpoint. nothing more and nothing less.
as regards terrorist attacking me, and if you want to play that game, then just wait till some country comes from 10 thousand miles away and destroys the infrastructure of your land and then stays there occupying it just because of its dirty games and all that's offered to you is a kalashnikov as a choice, then we'll see if you'll pick up that kalashnikov or not.
The UN is largely controlled by the enemies of Israel. What other conclusion would they come up with? Certainly their conclusion is politically correct. But does it make sense? I doubt it. Israel is too smart for that.
I stand by my statement that I do not support Israel. I am as concerned about the evil of killing innocent Muslims and Christians as I am of Jews. An innocent human life is an innocent human life. It doesn't matter if the victim agrees with me or not.
As I pointed out before, my godfather was a Maronite Christian. I have many friends who are Melkite Christians, and a few who are Chaldean Christians. I support them, the Christians in the Middle East.
As for Israel... they are happy to have Christian tourists. They are happy with Evangelical Christians who support their aspirations. But they have no respect for the Christians who make up a fourth of the 'Palestinians.'
...
I can but hope that I would prefer suffering and even death to suicide-murder. Such is the cost of true heroism.
...
Your own words witness against you... You say that it is right to kill the innocent. Such a judgment is clearly possible to one who believes in relativism. Thus you are merely debating the benefits and costs of terrorism... thus it makes sense to murder for money.
HS: "by emotionalising the issue and asking rhetorical questions you risk totally ignoring engaging with G V reddy's view."
I have no emotional attachment one way or another. I support the victims of terrorism, not the perpetrators.
GVR: "Bill i agree with you, the true martyr is the victim and never the perpetrator; either state or terrorist."
I think you are the first person who has expressed any agreement with me. I appreciate that.
Certainly there are states which perpetrate horrible evils. Such acts ought to be condemned.
i don't think i used the terms right or wrong, did i? i'd appreciate if you could produce the quotations. can you please produce some evidence as to your assertion that the UN is controlled by the enemies of Israel? all that i could say as a relativist is that it is possible for that some people may regard acts of terrorism as laudable and right. besides, i think moral non-absolutism is not such a marginal position, i think first endorsed by Mackie, but i may be wrong. as regards israel's policy as regards christians or your own background, i don't see how it's relevant to any of the arguments, unless we're arguing ad hominem here.
HS: "as regards israel's policy as regards christians or your own background, i don't see how it's relevant to any of the arguments, unless we're arguing ad hominem here."
When you attack my position as 'weird' it is most reasonable for me to defend myself. I have clearly said that I do not support Israel and given my reasons. Why must I keep saying it over and again?
HS: "can you please produce some evidence as to your assertion that the UN is controlled by the enemies of Israel?"
Look at the numbers... The General Assembly is dominated by Muslim countries, most of which have declared their open opposition to Israel.
In general the UN is famous for its tendency to allow the fox guard the hen house.
HS: "i don't think i used the terms right or wrong, did i? i'd appreciate if you could produce the quotations."
Your defense of terrorism is clear enough... "actually, if hamas gives money to suicide bombers' children or to the families of martyrs, then even suicide bombers may be actually choosing life too." Thus you honor the terrorist as a 'martyr.' A martyr is always an innocent victim, not a murderer.
Blood money is what it is. Those who receive such money are guilty of the blood, not only of their innocent victims, but even of their family member who perpetrated the act.
HS: "i think moral non-absolutism is not such a marginal position, i think first endorsed by Mackie, but i may be wrong."
Maybe he would agree with you.
VGR: "glorifying violence and justifying murder of common man for a cause/reason (good or bad) is inhuman. history is replete with examples of murder and mayhem- which is patriotism for one while it is terrorism for another.
The fundamental question is " does a common man/stake holder has a right to live?""
If humanity has a long history of such glorification or justification, would it not make such actions "Human" rather than "inhuman"?
Unfortunately, the *reality* for humanity is NOT the ideal - or ever has been. We live largely in a utilitarianism state - acknowledging the need for happiness AND unhappiness as dualities of moral measurement. The truth of our collective sadness is evident in our ability to focus on the promotion of happiness, rather than the *elimination of suffering*.
GVR: "my simple question is ' do we have a right to life' as a fundamental principle of all political and religious thought."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
~ John Hancock et al.; ***The Declaration of Independence;*** July 4, 1776.
a "martyr" is what some people call suicide bombers. i'm just using the word as an actors' category. anyway. there is a distinction between providing an explanation or justification and assigning blame or praise.
as regards the UN, i don't know, i always thought the Goldstone report was an independent report, and that the Security Council plays a significant role in things.
But i may be wrong.
Certainly the Security Council is the one place at the UN where Israel can get any substantial support.
The Goldstone report was commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council...
"According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
dear bill, actually the first (wikipedia) article cites the second one as its source, whereas the second one has no reference to which human rights groups it's referring and whether they're really independent. though it's another question whether a body can be totally independent and neutral.
I think it would have been totally uncharacteristically dumb for Israel to have attacked the UN with white phosphorus. It doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, it would have been a very clever thing for Hamas to have done, knowing that they would be absolved by the UN, which is largely controlled by Islamic states... and knowing that it would be politically incorrect for anyone to accuse them.
Believe me, it's a beautiful system.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy